NATESH MALHOTRA vs RAMESH KUMAR SETHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25.04.2026 + FAO 44/2025 & CM APPL.11815/2025 NATESH MALHOTRA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sumit Rajput and Mr. Auritro Mukherjee, Advocates versus RAMESH KUMAR SETHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akash Nagar, Mr. Sundar Bansal, Mr. Mayank Jha, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI ORDER 25.04.2026 [The matter has been taken up today as 03.03.2026 was declared holiday and 25.04.2026 being declared as Court sitting day.] 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court, being aggrieved with the order dated 31.01.2025 in CS DJ No. 152/2024, whereby the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The facts in a nutshell are that the plaintiff had preferred the underlying suit for specific performance and permanent injunction, or in alternative, recovery of Rs.91,10,000/-. In the suit, it was stated that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant on the first floor of the property, comprising of ground and first floor of the property bearing no. B-20, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI FAO 44/2025 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:04.05.2026 18:56:41 admeasuring 160 sq. yards, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi-110014 (hereinafter referred to as „the suit property‟) in the year 2016. The respondent, being the defendant before the Trial Court, was the landlord and owner, residing at the ground floor of the suit property. On 27.12.2022, the plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell with the defendant in respect of the first floor of the suit property, with the sale deed to be executed within five years. Thereafter, the defendant has obtained a clear title